MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding gay consumers’ clothing involvement and fashion consciousness

2007· article· en· W1992553928 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingConsciousnessPsychologyValue (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Social psychologyAdvertisingBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study’s primary objective was to provide a better understanding of gay consumers’ clothing involvement and fashion consciousness. Personal in‐depth interviews were conducted with 13 gay professionals in Canada. One hundred and forty‐five usable survey questionnaires were also collected from gay consumers. The Fashion Involvement Index Scale (FII scale) was adapted for this study. Interview participants indicated that, in general, gay men tend to be more fashion conscious than heterosexual men. Survey results also indicated two dimensions, fashion interest and fashion awareness that were found to be stronger for this group of gay consumers than for heterosexual men. The FII value for the survey participants also resulted in a sum score mean value of 11.2, a medium level of fashion involvement that is a slightly higher level than has been found for heterosexual consumers. Interestingly, this study does not provide strong evidence of gay consumers’ involvement in cutting‐edge fashion trends.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it